I have found that politicians who agree with me about guns agree with 99% of my other beliefs.

And those who do not support the Second Amendment will tend to support increases in welfare, cutting the military, increasing government power, etc.

Back around 1930 (when Republicans were hated in the Deep South and Democrats were the only candidates bothering to run) my mama was a young girl and heard her daddy talking about politicians. She had the following conversation:

Mama asked: "If a good Republican ran against a bad Democrat, which one would you vote for?"

Her daddy (after a bit of thinking) replied: "There's no such thing as a good Republican."

I have found that politicians who agree with me about guns agree with 99% of my other beliefs.

And those who do not support the Second Amendment will tend to support increases in welfare, cutting the military, increasing government power, etc.

Back around 1930 (when Republicans were hated in the Deep South and Democrats were the only candidates bothering to run) my mama was a young girl and heard her daddy talking about politicians. She had the following conversation:

Mama asked: "If a good Republican ran against a bad Democrat, which one would you vote for?"

Her daddy (after a bit of thinking) replied: "There's no such thing as a good Republican."

Click to expand...

I believe the same holds true for the Original " Interesting Viewpoint" question. Trick or Loaded question.

If there are two candidates, and both are pro-gun, and one does not agree with anything else I do, then NO, I will not vote for him just because he is pro-gun.

If there are two candidates, and both agree with everything I do, but one is pro-gun and one is anti. I will vote for the pro-gun one.

If there are two candidates, and one agrees with everything I do, EXCEPT he is anti-gun, and the other is opposite me on everything EXCEPT he is pro-gun, I will vote for the pro-gun one.

I am, pretty much, a "one-issue" voter. Gun rights. If you are against them, then I am against you. If you are for them, then I am for you.

As long as we are still armed, if whoever is in office decides to give citizenship to anyone in the world, or disband the Army, or institute a 90% income tax on everyone, then we can put his ass outa office and try again. They take our guns away, and WHATEVER whoever is in charge wants to do, he can do.

Where I draw the line is if a candidate believes in abortion I will not vote for them. But what I have found is my candidates line up with my beliefs fairly close.

Click to expand...

I agree, in most instances.

Over here, all the parties seem to be tarred with the same brush in the issues that matter to me, so it's harder to find a good party to vote for. Here we don't vote for candidates for offices. We vote for parties. My UK ballot paper has boxes for each party that has a candidate running in my area. The leader of the party that wins the most seats in parliament gets to be prime minister, or in the case of Scotland, First Minister.

The problem is people like Sen Harry Reid. He has proclaimed himself to be pro-gun. But he has supported and introduced legislation to destroy our rights, to seize property, to empower the regulators, doing far more damage than if he agreed with me but was anti-gun.

That is the problem with the one-item voting process. It empowers people like Harry Reid when people don't look real hard at them. I can deal with someone who pretty much follows what I agree with except for a couple of things as opposed to someone who proportes to be for me on one issue but opposes me on all other things.

No. Gary Johnson is pro gun, among several other things I believe in, but he'll never get my vote because he's pro abortion. I love my guns and our gun rights and will die for that right, but the ultimate issue for me is the right to life.